QF the Best Of the Best

[max1]

Could someone please explain to me why a QF pilot should at the end of the day earn more than an equivalent pilot at another carrier? eg Air Asia / Jetstar / Tiger

I'm not taking the piss just genuinely interested.

This is the question at the start of the thread.
The answer is that in the dim, distant past that Qantas management knew that they were in the airline business, i.e that people will pay money to get on a plane to get places quicker than any other form of transport.
The most integral part of the airline business were the staff who were on the plane looking after the customers. Second, were the staff who were on the ground who kept the planes in the air and looked after the punters before they got on the plane. Third, were anybody else in the business.

[novice110]

A few years on...

Could someone explain why a JQ pilot should earn more / less than a VB/ tiger / Qf etc pilot ?

Have they learnt how to study the wind.. Find an optimal level ?

What were the other differences last time around ?

What is the difference between positioning an airframe from A to B ?

[FGD135]

novice110, your naivete is breathtaking!


The salary differences between one airline and another have NOTHING to do with winds, optimal levels, skill levels etc.

[novice110]

Ok mate, fair enough then...

I just do not understand why some companies pay more for (what I see) as
Exactly the same form of labour.

What is the difference ? More skill ? Harder work ? Longer shifts ?

[FGD135]

It comes down to what has been negotiated, plus "historical" effects on salaries.


If the Qantas pilots were to all be sacked tomorrow, then be allowed to reapply for their jobs, you would find Qantas would only re-employ the ones prepared to accept half the salary they previously enjoyed.


Under the current (global) economic circumstances, about 90% of these pilots would go back to Qantas, with the airline being prepared to lose the other 10%.


So, you would then have the exact same pilots, with the exact same skills and training, now on half their previous salary.

I just do not understand why some companies pay more for (what I see) as Exactly the same form of labour.

In business, the name of the game is to pay the employees AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. This is true for all businesses - not just airlines. The skills and abilities of a worker have almost nothing to do with what their salary is!


Qantas would love to reduce their pilot salaries to the same level as those for Jetstar, but are prevented from doing so. Qantas management, over the years, has gone to CONSIDERABLE effort to find ways to reduce the salaries of all their staff (not just pilots).

[pull-up-terrain]

Just looking at the EBA's for Virgin and Tiger, they are pretty much getting paid similar to Qantas pilots now if not more and it looks like Jetstar pilots are negotiating a new EBA where the conditions will be similar to what every other airline in Australia are paying.

[27/09]

Could someone explain why a JQ pilot should earn more / less than a VB/ tiger / Qf etc pilot ?

I just do not understand why some companies pay more for (what I see) as
Exactly the same form of labour.

If you were to open your eyes and look around you'd find the same thing happens in other industries. It comes down to what's been negotiated.

Also you need to compare apples with apples. Base pay, incentive pay and allowances etc can vary quite a bit so it's very hard to compare real world take home pay.

[Little Black Duck]

I'd love to see everyone earning equal to or more than us again. They deserve it. If it doesn't happen sooner or later, the truly talented and driven will choose a different career. The travelling public are drawing closer and closer to getting what they pay for. I'm grateful to the very dedicated pilots still coming through who are maintaining the integrity of the profession.

[novice110]

The references to wind and levels was from some earlier posts. They were regarded as reasons why some pilot groups are better than others... (Ohforsure and keg).

It's a good thing you guys are not in sales... With respect the people on here seem very bad at selling yourselves.

And angryrat, I'm a bit lost on your post. Is the LH a reference to Lufthansa?
Good luck in your negotiations, I truly hope you get a better deal !

[Keg]

The references to wind and levels was from some earlier posts. They were regarded as reasons why some pilot groups are better than others... (Ohforsure and keg).

Nice verbaliing.

You were the one that posed the question (and implied an assertion) that two pilots following the same SOPs were worth the same.

But what is the difference in pilot A following standard procedure and pilot B also following standard procedure ? Are there secret better procedures ?

I was pointing out that there is a lot more to operating an aeroplane than simply SOPs and that smart managements knew that and paid accordingly. I used the wind as just one example of a multitude of examples of why your assertion of two pilots following SOPs must just be worth the same money is a crock. Other examples may include an airline who's pilots are able to demonstrate excellent SOPs but still prang short of the runway on a CAVOK day or were SOP'd perfectly but missed the fact they'd descended early and hit the hill 4 mile short of the runway.

My original response should not be viewed as suggesting that those paid less than Qantas pilots do NOT know these things (winds, etc) , simply that your assertion regarding SOPs was seriously flawed.

[novice110]

I still don't see the difference.
I don't read about any jet aircraft in Australia hitting hills or pranging short of the runway.
The perception is that modern computerised aircraft largely fly themselves. Sure a special skill set is required when things go wrong. I put it to you that this skill set is exactly the same across all carriers in Australia. So why pay differently in the future ?

And let's face it, Australia has some of the most benign weather in the world for flying in. As for hitting hills... It is a very flat country.

[Metro man]

Tell that to the families of the passengers involved in the Lockhart River disaster.

[Captain Nomad]

The perception is that modern computerised aircraft largely fly themselves. Sure a special skill set is required when things go wrong. I put it to you that this skill set is exactly the same across all carriers in Australia. So why pay differently in the future ?

And there's the rub. It is like trying to argue why an experienced pilot is worth more than a 200 hour cadet. Management and the public will never understand the differences when looking at dots on paper. Lulled into a sense of safety with no massive burning holes in the ground, the conclusion is that there is no difference, no reduction in safety, no reduction in quality, no undue risk.

Norfolk Island won't have a patch on the antics that will play out when the race to the bottom reaches ultimate consequences. What are YOU willing to pay?

[Andy_RR]

Originally Posted by FGD135

In business, the name of the game is to pay the employees AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. This is true for all businesses - not just airlines. The skills and abilities of a worker have almost nothing to do with what their salary is!

That's a pretty jaundiced view of business.

I've found that the profitable businesses will buy the best value human resources rather than the cheapest. There are a lot of cheap potential employees out there but when it comes to demanding jobs, they can wind up being very expensive for the company.

On the other hand, noone seems to have mentioned that Qantas was once part of a former, government sanctioned and supported duopoly, which is also a great way of hiding poor value from all concerned.

[novice110]

Nomad

I think the general public do understand the difference when talking about a 200hr cadet. Whilst these pilots are developing their skill set and experience, it is trusted that the other pilot sitting there is very experienced.

Surely these 200hr pilots would only be flying with senior / checking pilots for a few years first ? Geez I can only hope !

[Lookleft]

Surely these 200hr pilots would only be flying with senior / checking pilots for a few years first ? Geez I can only hope !

Brand new Captains only get 6 months before they can be rostered to fly with a cadet so yours is a vain hope novice.

[Captain Nomad]

Novice 110, I have simply highlighted that apples are not always apples, seemingly 'same' pilots operating to SOPs aside. There can be valid reasons for cost differences which it appears you have now consented to.

A discerning buyer will understand why they pay more sometimes for a particular product. They might even choose to pay more than the cheapest price. Admittedly it can be harder for the public to discern this with airlines unless there are smoking holes in the ground to compare against ticket price.

As others have highlighted, cheapest is not always best. It can be downright false economy. You also cannot attract and retain quality staff with peanuts. As the old saying goes, 'if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.'

Read up on the Colgan crash and then come back and tell us if you think employment conditions, training standards, quality of staff, company investment in training and development of staff etc have no bearing on the quality of product a ticket buyer is purchasing? With the benefit of hindsight, do you think the families of Colgan, Lockhart and numerous other air crashes would have been willing to pay more for a potentially safer product?

Once again, what are YOU willing to pay?

[novice110]

Lookleft and Nomad

Thanks very much for your insights. The questions I have had were under the false impression that the jet operators in Oz had the same experience levels.
Obviously, some have more flying time than others, but you know what I mean..
A new captain flying with a 200hr guy is a long way from what I thought was possible.

Ok point taken, I will read up on Colgan ... cheers.